From:
"Swindler, Luke" <luke_swindler_at_unc.edu>
Evaluating subscriptions at UNC Chapel Hill
The UNC University Library has developed a hierarchical structured
process for evaluating database, journal, and standing order
subscriptions that begins with using a standard methodology based on a
shared understanding of need/utility to assign a priority and sequential
ranking within priority category to each title across the academic spectrum.
UNC uses the following priority schema for evaluating titles:
* .Priority 1 = Essential (must have): a core resource integral to
supporting a program and so necessary that the library needs to fund
it if at all possible; the expectation is that the resource will get
high use or at least heavy and on-going use among its primary audience;
* .Priority 2 = Important (should have): a major resource for a
program; the expectation is that the resource will get substantial
and on-going use among at least its primary audience;
* .Priority 3 = Useful (could have): a significant resource for a
program; the expectation is that the resource will get appreciable
use among its primary audience; and
* .Priority 4 = Marginal (would have if funds permit): directly
relevant to supporting a field within a program; the expectation is
that the resource gets at least occasional use of from it
specialized audience.
The priority/ranking process is used for /both /adding and cancelling
subscriptions. This approach has the additional benefit of achieving
broad equity in mandated cancellations, especially in terms of resulting
in equitable treatment of titles crucial to small academic programs/user
populations.
Evaluation begins with individual subject librarians making suggestions
but subject teams (to which each selector is assigned) collectively
making actual recommendations to add or cancel. For expensive titles, a
third level is added with the Collections Steering Committee making
final decisions---which typically are based on the subject teams'
collective recommendations.
For adding subscriptions, the library provides the following
decision-making guidelines (which also can be used in assigning
priorities and rankings for cancellation):
* .Make a clear nexus between acquiring the resource and actual or
probable users' needs;
* .Make primary audience needs specific: "would support x number of
students in" or "would be used by all nearly the graduate students
in" rather than just "would support the students in" or "5
professors have requested" rather than just "some faculty";
* .Note if no other resource does what this one does or at least be
specific about the requested product's advantages over other
resources that campus libraries also offer, which would be crucial
if the academic program already is supported by several databases on
central funding;
* .Indicate if specific faculty (along with their affiliation) have
expressed a need for a resource and the strength of the expressed need;
* .Offer to support the acquisition of an expensive resource with
dollars, either your own or suggesting that another resource on
central funding be cancelled; and
* .For e-resources, schedule a trial before submission and share the
specific feedback, e.g., "used x number of times during" or ""I did
in x days research that previously would have taken two weeks or
some such longer time".
For cancelling subscriptions, the University Library provides 3-5 years
of data on cost and cost-per-use so that selectors can see trends and
take into account any statistical anomalies as well as latest impact
factor score (when available). These metrics are used as individual
components (rather than combined into a unitary algorithm) to establish
a priority and ranking for each title under review. Within this
context, quantitative data are always considered when available but are
not determinative of evaluation outcomes in and of themselves.
Luke Swindler
*******************************************************************************
Luke Swindler Collections Management Officer
Davis Library CB #3918 luke_swindler_at_unc.edu
<mailto:luke_swindler_at_unc.edu>
University of North Carolina TEL (919-962-1095)
Chapel Hill, NC 27514 USA FAX (919-962-4450)
*************************************************"*****************************
"It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most
intelligent, but the ones most responsive to change." Charles Darwin
On Jun 19, 2014, at 9:14 AM, John P. Abbott <AbbottJP_at_appstate.edu
<mailto:AbbottJP_at_appstate.edu>> wrote:
OP:
Cancellation decisions
From: Sarah Hamrick<sarah.hamrick_at_gallaudet.edu>
Hi all -- My library is faced with a major budget cut and we will need to cancel some of our electronic subscriptions -- both e-journals and databases. We're looking at usage and considering how broadly each title serves our user population.
Have any of you created formulas or other systems that you use to decide which electronic resources to cancel? Any information you can share will be much appreciated.
Sarah Hamrick
-- Sarah E. Hamrick Director of Library Public Services Gallaudet
University Library 800 Florida Avenue NE Washington, DC 20002 (202)
651-5214 V sarah.hamrick_at_gallaudet.edu
------------------------------------------
#1
CDL: Cancellation decisions?
From:
Steven Knowlton <steven_knowlton_at_hotmail.com>
The California Digital Library has created a Weighted Value Algorithm
that is highly useful for determining the value of a title to your
institution.
Their site is at
http://www.cdlib.org/cdlinfo/2012/02/13/calculating-scholarly-journal-value-through-objective-metrics/
But if you'd like to read an article that discusses its use in a
research project, please see:
*Knowlton, Steven A., Adam C. Sales and Kevin W. Merriman.**"A
Comparison of Faculty and Bibliometric Valuation of Serials
Subscriptions at an Academic Research Library."**/Serials Review/ 40,
no.1 (2014): 28-39.
#2
*
RE: Cancellation decisions?
From:
Jonathan Harwell <JHARWELL_at_Rollins.edu>
Hi Sarah,
A librarian colleague came up with the idea of streamlining the serials review process by creating a system to manage the data and recommend titles to consider for cancellation, based on all these factors. Another librarian colleague, Geoffrey Timms of Mercer University, went to work on creating this system. Geoff and I talked a lot about the specifications, how we wanted it to work, and the importance of making it user-friendly and available for free to libraries. We came to call it OARS: the Ongoing/Online Automated Review System. I've tested it with the collections of two very different libraries where I've worked-- one much larger than the other. My colleagues and I have found it invaluable for taking a large set of data and getting a big-picture view, resulting in an easy way to generate a list of titles to review for possible cancellation (the "low-hanging fruit" we're always trying to identify). Upload the data in an Excel template. Need to cut a certain doll!
ar amoun
t
, or a certain percentage? Just pop that in, adjust the weights as you like, and there's your list of low-hanging fruit for librarians and faculty to evaluate.
Check it out for yourself athttp://libraries.mercer.edu/tarver/about/library-innovations/oars-online-automated-review-system
See the "About OARS" link or our Charleston Conference paper athttp://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1114&context=charleston for a full explanation of how it works. You're more than welcome to use (and modify) it for free. You're even more welcome to think about, and improve on, the concept of how we took data items and melded them with a flexible weighting mechanism.
Geoff believes that the infrastructure he created is already dated, and that interested librarians might work with their Systems Departments to devise a system which works for them in their contexts. There's nothing really complicated about it. It involves entering and storing data and then running the OARS report. The OARS report is where our concept is utilized. For example, a similar system could be built by creating the structure in the Python-based Django (with a PGSQL database) which offers an out of the box administrative backend and convenient form generation. You could also do something similar by just using Access.
If it looks like an idea that works, use it. Play with it. Spread the word. And salute Geoff for his hard work!
Cheers,
Jonathan
**************************
Jonathan H. Harwell
Head of Collections and Systems
Olin Library
Rollins College
1000 Holt Avenue
Winter Park, FL 32789
jharwell_at_rollins.edu
(407) 646-2148
Received on Tue Jun 24 2014 - 03:02:13 EDT